Court lambasts citation of fake authorities in proceedings and orders wasted costs

The High Court has heavily criticised a party's solicitors and barrister for citing fake authorities in their client's pleadings: R (on the application of Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin).

The defendant in a judicial review case applied for a wasted costs order on the basis that the claimant's solicitors and barrister had cited a number of fake cases in their client's statement of facts and grounds for judicial review.

The defendant submitted that the fake citations arose from the use of artificial intelligence (AI). In the absence of relevant evidence, the judge declined to make a specific finding on this point. However, he firmly rejected the barrister's own explanation of how the fake cases had come to be cited and her submission that these were no more than "minor citation errors". He also criticised the solicitors for their unprofessional approach and failure to account for what had happened. He concluded that the conduct of the barrister and solicitors had been improper, unreasonable and negligent, ordered the judgment to be sent to the regulators and suggested that the barrister and solicitors also self-report. He also ordered wasted costs.    

The President of the King's Bench Division has now summoned the legal representatives involved to attend court to consider what further steps, including the initiation of proceedings for contempt, might be appropriate. 

This case is only one of a number of recent examples of fake cases being cited in court proceedings. This issue is likely to become more prevalent as the use of AI increases.

For more information, see this post on our Insurance Notes blog.